From NASA Science News January 15, 2010: Last year, when NASA’s IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft discovered a giant ribbon at the edge of the solar system, researchers were mystified. They called it a “shocking result” and puzzled over its origin.
Now the mystery may have been solved.
“We believe the ribbon is a reflection,” says Jacob Heerikhuisen, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is where solar wind particles heading out into interstellar space are reflected back into the solar system by a galactic magnetic field.”
Heerikhuisen is the lead author of a paper reporting the results in the Jan. 10th edition of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
“This is an important finding,” says Arik Posner, IBEX program scientist at NASA Headquarters. “Interstellar space just beyond the edge of the solar system is mostly unexplored territory. Now we know, there could be a strong, well-organized magnetic field sitting right on our doorstep.”
The IBEX data fit in nicely with recent results from Voyager. Voyager 1 and 2 are near the edge of the solar system and they also have sensed strong* magnetism nearby. Voyager measurements are relatively local to the spacecraft, however. IBEX is filling in the “big picture.” The ribbon it sees is vast and stretches almost all the way across the sky, suggesting that the magnetic field behind it must be equally vast.
Although maps of the ribbon (see below) seem to show a luminous body, the ribbon emits no light. Instead, it makes itself known via particles called “energetic neutral atoms” (ENAs)–mainly garden-variety hydrogen atoms. The ribbon emits these particles, which are picked up by IBEX in Earth orbit.
Above: A comparison of IBEX observations (left) with a 3D magnetic reflection model (right). More images: data, model.
The reflection process posited by Heerikhuisen et al. is a bit complicated, involving multiple “charge exchange” reactions between protons and hydrogen atoms. The upshot, however, is simple. Particles from the solar wind that escape the solar system are met ~100 astronomical units (~15 billion kilometers) away by an interstellar magnetic field. Magnetic forces intercept the escaping particles and sling them right back where they came from.
“If this mechanism is correct–and not everyone agrees–then the shape of the ribbon is telling us a lot about the orientation of the magnetic field in our corner of the Milky Way galaxy,” notes Heerikhuisen.
And upon this field, the future may hinge.
The solar system is passing through a region of the Milky Way filled with cosmic rays and interstellar clouds. The magnetic field of our own sun, inflated by the solar wind into a bubble called the “heliosphere,” substantially protects us from these things. However, the bubble itself is vulnerable to external fields. A strong magnetic field just outside the solar system could press against the heliosphere and interact with it in unknown ways. Will this strengthen our natural shielding—or weaken it? No one can say.
Right: An artist’s concept of interstellar clouds in the galactic neighborhood of the sun. [more]
“IBEX will monitor the ribbon closely in the months and years ahead,” says Posner. “We could see the shape of the ribbon change—and that would show us how we are interacting with the galaxy beyond.”
It seems we can learn a lot by looking in the mirror. Stay tuned to Science@NASA for updates.
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Well, no. But the vids were interesting anyway, so thanks for that.
My general view is that it’s good that smart people who can juggle equations are working on several different theories. Most of them seem to be able to do that without telling each other that bits of their theories are to be brushed under carpets or censored out of existence. Especially solid empirical observations. They are of course free to say that certain things ‘don’t matter’ as far as their theory is concerned, but in general we “have to go where the observations lead us”.
From a philosphical point of view, the ultimate theory of everything in which all constants have been integrated and all forces unified would have to look something like:
Sigma (or ‘M’) (or Whatever you favourite symbol is) = Zero (or One) (or eleven)
In fact, even the equals sign has to go, since the ultimate unified theory can’t be differentiated to separate concepts either side of a concept of equality.
So the ultimate statement about everything is simply:
“Everything is”
Or as Lao Tzu put it a couple of thousand years ago:
“The Tao that can be described is not the Tao.”
Then at the next level down, the expansion of that would show the relations and proportions and interconvertibility between the forces and entities we differentiate in our ontology as gravity, EM, light, mass etc.
That’s the tricky bit.
Vincent (04:00:16) :
Leif,
Are you saying that if Miller’s results were correct it would prove SR to be wrong? I don’t see why a tiny anomaly should falsify time dilation and the Lorentz transformation. It would just mean that there is something else going on we don’t understand.
Nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, a fact that necessitates the invention of a new type of energy.
Cannot both SR and Miller be right?
The answer would be “yes”, if, the order of magnitude of the effect seen is so small as not to affect the plethora of measurements that confirm special relativity.
From what I have seen that is the assumption that sets aside these measurements as a test of SR, too small an effect.
Now it could be that the errors are not calculated correctly, systematic etc since there is a day variation in the measurements, or it could be a real effect to be explained by one of the many theories of everything that are ready to pounce on any data.
I have sat through a number of theoretical lectures where an ether is in effect postulated by the way people manipulate the equations. Let alone the famous vacuum sea with all those bubbling virtual pair creations from tiny black holes to electron/positron pairs that will grab those em waves and give them a handshake.
So my take is that in the same way that Neutonian mechanics works to great precision for our everyday ( including launching satellites) life, special relativity is proven to great precision for the microcosm from transistors to elementary particles. That would not exclude a higher theory coming up within the errors with some sort of an ether after all, but not an ether that would be necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic waves,( the way that a medium is necessary for acoustic waves).
anna v (04:35:45) :
Now it could be that the errors are not calculated correctly, systematic etc since there is a day variation in the measurements
I agree with most of your post Anna, but I’d just like to pick up on this point. There is no regular diurnal variation in Millers results. The variation is sidereal, and therefore cosmic in origin.
tallbloke (13:06:34) :
The variation is sidereal, and therefore cosmic in origin.
If you plot noise against sidereal time and interpret the result as a signal, you will get a spurious result which you’ll interpret as cosmic. Had you plotted the same data against lunar time and interpreted the result as a signal, you would get a spurious result which you’ll interpret a lunar. etc.
Please, Dr. Svalgaard, you are the last person who should be invoking Hannes Alfven. Alfven thought “magnetic reconnection” was pseudo-science, explicitly stating such. And, also, disagreed with “frozen in” magnetic fields as he stated in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech (I don’t know how much more public and explicit Alfven could be than to specifically reject the “frozen in” concept during his acceptance speech).
And, Alfven was right to reject “magnetic reconnection” as pseudo-science when it ignores plasma flows, charge seperation, and electric fields to obsess about magnetic field lines (which are only an abstraction, lines on a map, anyway).
But the scientific papers you kindly provided me reporting in situ data & analysis are first class Science – observation & measurement.
The scientific papers reporting in situ observations & measurements of “magnetic reconnection” in space are another matter entirely. The papers (and I do appreciate your bringing them to my attention) are not the same as that ludicrous Stanford link about rubber bands and paperclips analogy or the Wikipedia entry that, again, obsessed on magnetic fields without hardly a reference to anything else.
Rather:
What the papers reported was electrons and ions lining up across from each other (an electric field), magnetic fields, plasma flows, movement of free electrons and ions, acceleration of charged particles, exhaust jets where electrons and ions were “jetted” in opposite directions (consistent with double layer behavior):
A full picture of the physical forces, structures, and dynamics which are consistent with an electric double layer process; and as I stated before: First class Science.
Hannes Alfven would be proud of these papers’ discussion of the physical parameters and proud of you for providing them to me (I sense he was a true teacher and a humanitarian — worthy of a Nobel Prize — wanting to spread knowledge to people interested in learning).
What Hannes Alfven would not be proud of is inconsistent prior statements.
The Stanford analogy and the Wikpedia entry clearly are junk science which Hannes Alfven would laugh at before dismissing as the pseudo-science they are.
What would make Hannes Alfven turn in his grave is the obfiscation and denial that grips astronomy, today.
Hannes Alfven would be very proud of the in situ observation & measurement and analysis & interpretation those papers represent.
Dr. Svalgaard, providing those papers to me is a credit to you. I thank you.
Inconsistent prior statements are not a credit to you.
This thread has run its course, so I’ll leave it here for another time when an appropriate topic post is presented by our excellent, fair, and tolerant host.
James F. Evans (15:25:22) :
Please, Dr. Svalgaard, you are the last person who should be invoking Hannes Alfven.
Hannes was a good personal friend of mine. And we have often discussed this. It took him some time to accept the existence of the HCS, but he eventually came around.
Alfven thought “magnetic reconnection” was pseudo-science
If ‘magnetic reconnection’ is the same process as ‘double layers’, then ‘double layers’ aka ‘magnetic reconnection’ is pseudo-science too. Unfortunately for Hannes, magnetic reconnection is an observed fact, both in spaces and in the laboratory: http://mrx.pppl.gov/
James F. Evans (15:25:22)
..What the papers reported was electrons and ions lining up across from each other (an electric field), magnetic fields, plasma flows, movement of free electrons and ions, acceleration of charged particles, exhaust jets where electrons and ions were “jetted” in opposite directions (consistent with double layer behavior):
A full picture of the physical forces, structures, and dynamics which are consistent with an electric double layer process;
~
Thanks Evans.
You too, Leif!
Electric Double Layers in space are a fact.
Magnetic reconnection that ignores plasma flows, charge seperation, and electric fields to obsess about magnetic field lines is incomplete and misleading. That’s why Hannes Alfven considered it pseudo-scientific.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040228.pdf
Readers will note after reading the paper above that plasma flows, charge seperation, electric fields, charged particle acceleration, and free electrons & ions being accelerated in opposite directions are all observed & measured and discussed.
Consistent with double layer processes and behavior.
Please, Dr. Svalgaard is does no good to distort:
Evans wrote: “Or do you maintain, ‘The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.’ — A. L. Peratt, does not exist in that physical circumstance [solar wind]?”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “There are no currents in the escaping solar wind as equal number of electrons and protons leave the Sun.”
Dr. Peratt was not referring to “currents” as in ‘electrical currents’, rather, moving plasma, quasi-neutral, equal numbers of electrons and ions, flowing plasma, which produce self-magnetic fields.
This is correct way to articulate magnetic fields resulting from flowing plasma, not “frozen in” magnetic fields which is a hold-over from a formalistic MHD representation that Alfven, after developing the concept, himself, rejected in his Nobel Prize speech after repeated plasma physics laboratory experiments showed it was a misleading representation.
Also, this flowing plasma does indeed produce magnetic fields independent from the Sun’s dipole magnetic field which is shaped like a bar magnet’s magnetic field.
In example:
A coronal mass ejection (CME), is an ejection of plasma as part of the solar wind and it has its own magnetic field independent from the Sun’s dipole magnetic field.
As reported by NASA: “April 14, 2009: This just in: The Sun is blasting the solar system with croissants.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
“What is the orientation and strength of its [CME] internal magnetic field?”
The above sentence strongly implies NASA subscribes to the view that a CME has its own magnetic field.
“Coronal mass ejections are billion-ton clouds of hot magnetized [plasma] gas that explode away from the sun at speeds topping a million mph.”
“That’s how CMEs get started—as twisted ropes of solar magnetism. When the energy in the twist reaches some threshold, there is an explosion which expels the CME away from the sun. It looks like a croissant because the twisted ropes [magnetic field] are fat in the middle and thin on the ends.”
The CME has it’s own twisted magnetic field shaped like a “croissant” structured around the “flowing plasma” that constitutes the coronal mass ejection.
This croissant shaped magnetic field of the CME is independent of the Sun’s dipole magnetic field. Sure, it interacts with the Sun’s dipole magnetic field, but the CME’s magnetic field is primarily dependent on the CME’s internal plasma dynamics for it shape and strength.
James F. Evans (18:38:26) :
You just don’t get it. Or do get it, but have a mental block about admitting it.
Magnetic reconnection that ignores plasma flows, charge seperation, and electric fields to obsess about magnetic field lines is incomplete and misleading. That’s why Hannes Alfven considered it pseudo-scientific.
You don’t seem to get that magnetic reconnection can occur when opposite polarity magnetic field lines are pressed together by the flow of the plasma in which they are embedded [frozen in]. Reconnection can also occurs without any plasma or electric fields, e.g. by simply turning a toy magnetic in air.
[…]are all observed & measured and discussed.
Consistent with double layer processes and behavior.
All of these things are connected with the magnetic field. Double layers have nothing to do with magnetic fields [some are even without currents].
Dr. Peratt was not referring to “currents” as in ‘electrical currents’, rather, moving plasma, quasi-neutral, equal numbers of electrons and ions, flowing plasma, which produce self-magnetic fields.
Moving plasma just flowing does not produce any magnetic field and in particular not the magnetic field in the solar wind.
repeated plasma physics laboratory experiments showed it was a misleading representation.
Modern laboratory experiments are quite nicely represented as reconnection: http://mrx.pppl.gov/
A coronal mass ejection (CME), is an ejection of plasma as part of the solar wind and it has its own magnetic field independent from the Sun’s dipole magnetic field.
As I have said several times, the solar wind’s magnetic field at low and medium latitudes does not come from the dipole fields, but from coronal holes and from CMEs. The magnetic field in a CME comes directly from the Sun, and is still rooted in the Sun when the CME cross the Earth. We know this from electrons streaming up and down the ‘legs’ of the magnetic ‘tongue’ extending from the Sun through the CME and back to Sun. The CMEs magnetic field is the Sun’s magnetic field frozen into the CME plasma.
Because the Sun’s field is frozen into the plasma of the CME, when the CME ploughs into the ambient solar wind, its plasma and magnetic field are compressed. All of this has been well-known for thirty years. And now you know it too.
David Stern in his http://www.phy6.org/Education/bh2_6.html
discusses the acceleration of auroral particles, and notes:
“An alternative acceleration process, promoted by Alfven [Brush, 1990] and by Block [1972, 1978; Goertz, 1979], centered on the existence of a “double layer,” an abrupt field-aligned voltage jump of appreciable intensity. Large impulsive electric fields were observed by electric field probes aboard S3-3 [Mozer et al., 1977] and the suggestion was made that they might be the signature of double layers. However, other possible explanations also exist, and no compelling evidence for the existence of such layers in space has surfaced since then.”
The recent observations are evidence of reconnection [as the papers themselves note]. Nowhere in the papers do they mention ‘double layers’ as the basic mechanism. This does not mean [as I have said] that double layers cannot form here and there where conditions are favorable.
I think I know where your reluctance to learn comes from, namely the EU cult, that strongly condemns magnetic reconnection [MC], but does embrace DLs, and by equating [with an ‘aka’] DLs and MC you can bring the recent observations under the EU umbrella without violating [much] the EU tenets.
Leif Svalgaard (14:14:59) :
tallbloke (13:06:34) :
The variation is sidereal, and therefore cosmic in origin.
If you plot noise against sidereal time and interpret the result as a signal, you will get a spurious result which you’ll interpret as cosmic.
This isn’t what Miller did. He plotted light fringe readings against clock time, then found the the consistent and not noisy results matched sidereal time rather than Earth rotation time.
You won’t look at Millers results in an unprejudiced and scientific way, and you won’t even acknowledge the existence of Galaev’s 2002 replication and confirmation of Miller’s 1926 results. Instead you seek to cast doubt on the work of a dedicated and careful experimentalist, without taking the time to acquaint yourself with the methodology.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts…facts are stuborn things.
And, yes, I get it and you don’t like it because it contradicts your opinion.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “You don’t seem to get that magnetic reconnection can occur when opposite polarity magnetic field lines are pressed together by the flow of the plasma in which they are embedded [frozen in].”
No, Dr. Svalgaard, magnetic fields are not embedded into plasma. Plasma which is motionless has no magnetic field, only plasma in motion has a magnetic field. The term “frozen in” is a misnomer.
As Dr. Anthony Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, an expert in plasma physics states:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.”
When it come down to your opinion or Dr. Peratt’s opinion having more credibility, I’ll go with the expert that has been working at Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1981 to the present with high energy plasma physics and researching astrophysical plasmas.
Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s biography:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
You worked in a plasma laboratory, from what 1972 to 1978 at Stanford, that’s over 30 years ago — much knowledge has been gained since then while you were working on computer programming for various companies and now on your own.
You qualifications don’t measure up to Dr. Peratt’s.
Dr. Svalgaard: “You don’t seem to get that magnetic reconnection can occur when opposite polarity magnetic field lines are pressed together by the flow of the plasma…”
Yes, I’m sure Electric Double Layers can occur when opposite polarity magnetic field are pressed together by the flow of plasma which results in:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Reconnection can also occurs without any plasma or electric fields, e.g. by simply turning a toy magnetic in air.”
Maybe, but I don’t see any scientific papers to that effect. Do you have a citation for that proposition? And, it wouldn’t do anything, anyway, in terms of accelerating free electrons and ions in opposite directions causing an electric current as there would be no plasma around the toy magnet.
You’ll have to do better than that.
Evans wrote: “[…]are all observed & measured and discussed.
Consistent with double layer processes and behavior.”
Dr. Svalgaard responed: “All of these things are connected with the magnetic field. Double layers have nothing to do with magnetic fields [some are even without currents].”
“Double Layers have nothing to do with magnetic fields”???
That’s a demonstratively false statement as double layers result from a plasma impinging perpendicularly on a magnetic field. And, the above statement contradicts your prior statement:
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:15) October 29, 2009: “…
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans statement: “Frankly, the descriptions [of “magnetic reconnection”] are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field.”
Yes, I’ve already presented that, but it bears repeating as it’s relevant to your statement’s credibility.
Dr. Svalgaard, your a smart man, but even smart men can’t get around their own prior inconsistent statements.
Again, if it comes down to your credibility or Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s credibility, I’ll go with Anthony L. Peratt’s credibility on the subject:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
And, since you already agreed with him, you should, too:
“Yes, the electric current is created by the neutral plasma moving through a magnetic field.” — Dr. Svalgaard’s response to Dr. Peratt’s statement.
Evans wrote: “Dr. Peratt was not referring to “currents” as in ‘electrical currents’, rather, moving plasma, quasi-neutral, equal numbers of electrons and ions, flowing plasma, which produce self-magnetic fields.”
Dr. Svalgaard’s response: “Moving plasma just flowing does not produce any magnetic field and in particular not the magnetic field in the solar wind.”
Again, if its your opinion’s credibility versus Dr. Peratt’s credibility — I’ll go with Dr. Peratt’s credibility:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
“Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, Z-pinches, and inertially driven fusion target designs.”
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
Evans stated: “repeated plasma physics laboratory experiments showed it was a misleading representation.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Modern laboratory experiments are quite nicely represented as reconnection: http://mrx.pppl.gov/
Dr. Svalgaard, you took my statement out of context — let me put it proper context for you:
Evans wrote: “This is correct way to articulate magnetic fields resulting from flowing plasma, not “frozen in” magnetic fields which is a hold-over from a formalistic MHD representation that Alfven, after developing the concept, himself, rejected in his Nobel Prize speech after repeated plasma physics laboratory experiments showed it was a misleading representation.”
Note the last sentence of the paragraph is the one you quoted and my sentence addressed why Hannes Alfven rejected “frozen in” magnetic fields and the paragraph addresses Alfven’s position on “frozen in” magnetic fields, not “reconnection”.
Please don’t take my statements out of context for your own purposes.
As regards the Princeton website’s statement on the physics — I find it propagates the same errors you do, no surprise, there.
Evans wrote: “A coronal mass ejection (CME), is an ejection of plasma as part of the solar wind and it has its own magnetic field independent from the Sun’s dipole magnetic field.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “As I have said several times, the solar wind’s magnetic field at low and medium latitudes does not come from the dipole fields, but from coronal holes and from CMEs.”
I don’t recall you stating that on this thread, perhaps on another thread.
No matter. Although, that actually sounds pretty much as I wrote: There is a dipole magnetic field and seperate magnetic fields associated with CME’s.
From spaceweather.com:
“The Sun is a big magnet.
During solar minimum the Sun’s magnetic field, like Earth’s, resembles that of an iron bar magnet, with great closed loops near the equator and open field lines near the poles. Scientists call such a field a “dipole.” The Sun’s dipolar field is about as strong as a refrigerator magnet, or 50 gauss. Earth’s magnetic field is 100 times weaker.
During the years around solar maximum (2000 and 2001 are good examples) spots pepper the face of the Sun. Sunspots are places where intense magnetic loops — hundreds of times stronger than the ambient dipole field — poke through the photosphere. Sunspot magnetic fields overwhelm the underlying dipole; as a result, the Sun’s magnetic field near the surface of the star becomes tangled and complicated.”
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html
I’d have to say the spaceweather.com statement is consistent with what I’ve been saying.
It seems, Dr. Svalgaard, you just couldn’t bear to agree with me in spite of the scientific validity of what I wrote as backed up by spaceweather.com.
As for David Stern’s statement, I don’t give it much credibility — I’ll go with Anthony L. Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Oh, and by the way, is Dr. Anthony L. Peratt part of a cult?
Dr. Svalgaard, give it a rest.
I’m sorry, I forgot to address this statement:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The magnetic field in a CME comes directly from the Sun, and is still rooted in the Sun when the CME cross the Earth. We know this from electrons streaming up and down the ‘legs’ of the magnetic ‘tongue’ extending from the Sun through the CME and back to Sun. The CMEs magnetic field is the Sun’s magnetic field frozen into the CME plasma.”
“The electrons streaming up and down the ‘legs’ of the magnetic ‘tongue’ extending from the Sun through the CME and back to Sun.”
Actually, this sounds like electric current which, of course, generates magnetic fields, not a “frozen in” magnetic field at all.
And here is support for my contention:
Driving Currents for Flux Rope Coronal Mass Ejections
Submitted on 23 Oct 2008
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Such currents are responsible for providing the Lorentz self-force that propels CMEs. Our estimates for the driving current are based on measurements of the propelling force obtained using data from the LASCO coronagraphs aboard the SOHO satellite. We find that upper limits on the currents enclosed by CMEs are typically around $10^{10}$ Amperes. We estimate that the magnetic flux enclosed by the CMEs in the LASCO field of view is a few $\times 10^{21}$ Mx.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
To highlight: “We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs).”
Not bad, not bad at all.
tallbloke (13:06:34) : | Reply w/ Link
There is no regular diurnal variation in Millers results. The variation is sidereal, and therefore cosmic in origin.
I saw the plots of Galaev from your link. He has a day in August on page 30, and sidereal day is a few seconds shorter than normal day, so I do not know what you are talking about.
There are no errors on his plots, and the word “error” appears only once in the paper in the context of criticizing metalic containers which, referring to a complicated theory, should shield the ether wind.
In contrast there are very many repetitions of the Michelson Morley results, to tiny accuracies:
Worth reading about the lazer age experiments.
So ether as a medium on which electromagnetic waves depend for propagation is out, imo, and that is the crux of the matter.
Miller conducted his experiments at various times of year and was rigorous in his control experiments. Wikipedia repeats the same old lies about Dayton Miller and Michelson – Morley and I don’t trust it as a knowledge source on this issue any more than it’s pages on global warming.
Miller’s data sheets are still in the archive of Case Western University.
Maybe it’s about time someone did a proper reassessment stateside.
tallbloke (02:12:46) :
Maybe it’s about time someone did a proper reassessment stateside.
Tom Roberts at Fermilab has done this. I have given you several links to this. He notes: “Remarkably, the raw data of this experiment have survived (copies can be ordered from the C.W.R.U. archives). They were also re-analyzed in: T.J. Roberts, “An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s Anomalous ‘Ether Drift’ Result”, arXiv:physics/0608238. This paper explains in detail how and why Miller was fooled (using digital signal processing techniques), and performs an error analysis showing his results are not statistically significant. It also presents a new analysis that models his systematic drift and obtains a zero result with an upper bound on “æther drift” of 6 km/s (90% confidence). In short, this is every experimenter’s nightmare: Miller was unknowingly looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift that precisely mimicked the appearance of a real signal. While Miller himself could not have known this, there is no reason to believe or accept his anomalous result today.”
Galaev also did not perform proper error analysis.
Roberts continue: “Miller’s anomalous result comes from averaging data—the elementary error analysis is indisputable and shows that his result is not statistically significant. Some modern authors even perform a complicated statistical analysis on plots of his run results vs. sidereal time, proclaiming there is a “significant signal”—they forgot to look at the raw data and compute the statistical significance of each run’s result: those are not significant, which destroys their house of cards.
There is also an aspect of experimenter’s bias in Miller’s original result (and in the modern “re-interpretations” that find a “signal”). He clearly over-averaged his data, and the “signal” he (and others) found is an order of magnitude smaller than the resolution with which his raw data points were recorded. It is a fact of arithmetic that when averaging data one will obtain an answer, but an error analysis is required to determine whether or not it is statistically significant. People unfamiliar with modern experimental physics can impose their personal desires onto Miller’s plots and find a “signal” by ignoring the huge scatter of the individual runs and just looking at the averages. The quantitative error analysis shows this approach is woefully inadequate and the “signal” found this way is not significant.”
Instead you seek to cast doubt on the work of a dedicated and careful experimentalist
No need to cast doubt; numerous modern experiments confirm SR to a very high precision, so Miller’s claim should not be just doubted but discarded outright, which is rightfully done by the 99.99% of all physicists [all of whom you have declared dishonest]
James F. Evans (23:13:04) :
you don’t like it because it contradicts your opinion.
It contradicts not my opinion [and scientists don’t have ‘opinions’ in the usual sense about scientific papers – instead they have ‘assessments’ of their validity] but all of modern space science. For the rest, your reply has been dealt with already with sufficient detail.
Perhaps it is time for you to ‘give it a rest’.
Dr. Svalgaard, you have forfeited your credibility.
[Reply: Specifics? ~dbs, mod.]
James F. Evans (09:27:10) :
Dr. Svalgaard, you have forfeited your credibility.
Coming from you, I consider this a compliment. I think it was Groucho Marx who said: “I wouldn’t want to be member of a club that would accept me as a member”.
dbs, the discussion in the comment thread speaks for itself.
Of course, fair-minded readers have to come to their own conclusion.
James F. Evans (10:09:50) :
Of course, fair-minded readers have to come to their own conclusion.
And if they come to the conclusion accepted by modern space physics, they are not ‘fair-minded’ then?
Leif Svalgaard (06:59:21) :
tallbloke (02:12:46) :
Maybe it’s about time someone did a proper reassessment stateside.
Tom Roberts at Fermilab has done this. I have given you several links to this.
You’ve given me one link to a paper on arxiv which is not published in a journal so far as I can tell.
Reading T.J. Roberts paper, I note he doesn’t tell us what fractions of the sample of Miller’s results he used comes from the basement in Case Western University, and what fraction from Mount Wilson, where a stronger signal was detected for reasons Miller discusses, but Roberts does not recapitulate or address.
I think for now I’ll stick with Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais who has done extensive study of Miller’s results, and has concluded in his abstract: “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects. As a result the light velocity is not invariant whatever its direction and consequently the principle of invariance of light velocity on which fundamentally does rest the special theory of relativity is invalidated by the observation data.” Allais adds: “Shankland’s and et al’s conclusions on the temperature effects are based on shaky hypotheses and reasonings. They are totally unfounded” (L’origine des régularités constatés dans les observations interférométriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926): variations de température ou anisotropie de l’espace,” C. R. Academy of Science, Paris, t. 1, Sèrie IV, p. 1205-1210, 2000, translated from the French, p. 1205).
99.99% of all physicists [all of whom you have declared dishonest]
Ah, the bad science inside the square brackets again [and outside as well in this case].
tallbloke (12:52:55) :
Ah, the bad science inside the square brackets again [and outside as well in this case].
Ah, first you declare that honest science goes out the window if one accepts the high-precision modern tests of SR, meaning that if a scientist is honest, he shouldn’t accept such, then you call your assessment ‘bad science.
tallbloke (12:52:55) :
You’ve given me one link to a paper on arxiv which is not published in a journal so far as I can tell. […]
I think for now I’ll stick with Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais
Perhaps you also go with that other Nobel Laureate who is supported by peer-reviewed papers on AGW.
No serious scientists today discards SR [as they must if Miller were correct – as Einstein said]. It is a hallmark of pseudo-science to uncritically suspend disbelief and rigorous science, and not just for one aspect but in case after case of dubious claims. You are, it seems, a prime example.
tallbloke (12:52:55) :
You’ve given me one link to a paper on arxiv which is not published in a journal so far as I can tell. […]
Here is another arxiv for you:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0506/0506168v1.pdf
Note the may references to journal-published papers if you must.
“5 Conclusion
One hundred years after the publication of Einstein’s original paper [1] special relativity, and its fundamental postulate of Lorentz invariance (LLI) are still as ”healthy” as in their first years, in spite of theoretical work (unification theories) that hint towards a violation of LLI, and tremendous experimental efforts to find such a violation. Our experiments over the last years have provided some of the most stringent tests of LLI [6, 7, 8, 9], but have nonetheless only joined the growing number of experiments in scientific history that measure zero deviation from LLI, albeit with an ever decreasing uncertainty.”